David S. Miller wrote:
> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:22:32 +0100
> From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <[email protected]>
>
> David, not only is the fuzzy hash O(n) (with low constant) for lookup,
> it is also O(n) for insert, requiring insertion onto two separate
> ordered lists...
>
> No it isn't, for the insert case you have to find the neighbours
> anyways so the cost of a lookup is what you eat and this is an
> unavoidable overhead no matter what algorithm you use.
I don't think your arguments make sense. I think you can avoid finding
the neighbors (explicitly) in insert by coding it differently.
Unfortunately, I'm to busy to produce any code right now.
One the other hand, the argument that the algorithm is O(n) (instead
of O(log n)) doesn't say that much unless we are talking of really big
n:s (because of the low constant), which as I understood was not the
case here.
By the way, I just found out that the very first Forth implementation
also used a "fuzzy hashing" data structure to implement its
dictionary. See http://www.dnai.com/~jfox/f70c5.html.
Regards,
Patrik H?gglund